AI robots are already showing up in city parks—patrolling at night, helping during pandemics, and guiding visitors. Cool idea, right? Maybe. A new study looked at how the public actually feels about these robots, and the findings are a wake-up call: people are worried.
Using 36,520 YouTube comments about park robots, the researchers ran large-scale sentiment and topic analyses. The verdict: negative reactions were common, and not just mild annoyance. Think fear of control, fear of harm, and images pulled straight from sci-fi.
That doesn’t mean park robots are doomed. It means we
need human-centered design—from the shape of the robot to the rules that
govern it—so the tech supports the relaxing, restorative experience parks are
meant to provide.
What the public is saying
· “Will this thing police me?”
Many commenters feared robots that monitor or control people in public
spaces.
· “Is this a weapon in waiting?”
Mentions of weaponization were common. Popular culture primes these
reactions—think Terminator, Black Mirror, Star Wars.
· “What about animals?”
People worried robots could stress wildlife—from zoo cheetahs to sheep
in fields.
· “Patrol bots feel the scariest.”
Robots built for security drew more negative reactions than those doing
benign tasks.
Why this matters for parks
Parks are supposed to make us feel safe, calm, and
connected. If robots trigger anxiety, we risk trading away the mental
health and social benefits that parks deliver—especially for people already
sensitive to surveillance or tech (like elders and kids).
At the same time, robots could help: 24/7 patrols
can deter crime, reduce staff risk, and support public health during crises.
The point isn’t to reject robots; it’s to build them around people.
Human-Centered Design: A simple checklist for park
robots
1) Explain the “why,” “what,” and “where.”
· Clear signage and demos: what the robot does,
what it doesn’t do, and where it operates.
· Marked robot zones so visitors can opt
in—or avoid them.
2) Make control visible and simple.
· Big, obvious help/stop buttons and QR
codes for feedback.
· Staff on-site who can answer questions and
de-escalate.
3) Choose a friendly form factor.
· Avoid silhouettes that echo military or
horror tropes (yes, sci-fi aesthetics matter).
· Use calm movement patterns; no sudden sprints or
looming behavior.
4) Build trust by design, not by promise.
· Privacy-first: no facial recognition by
default; strict data minimization; short retention; third-party audits.
· Transparency: publish capabilities and
limitations; display data indicators (recording/not recording).
· Fairness: no profiling; independent
review of algorithms.
5) Protect wildlife.
· Low noise, low speed near habitat; animal-aware
sensors; no pursuit behaviors.
· Vet routes and schedules with ecologists;
monitor impacts and adapt.
6) Start small, with the community.
· Pilot in limited areas; collect feedback from women,
elders, teens, and minority groups who may experience parks differently.
· Treat negative feedback as a design requirement,
not a PR problem.
The opportunity (if we get it right)
· Safer parks without adding risk to human
staff.
· Accessible assistance after hours and
during events.
· Better information for maintenance and
conservation—done ethically.
· Public trust in civic AI, built in the
open and earned over time.
A note to city leaders, designers, and vendors
If a robot makes a park feel less welcoming, it fails—no
matter how advanced it is. The study’s big lesson is clear: design for
people first. That means co-creating with park users, being honest about
trade-offs, and putting privacy, safety, and wildlife care front and center.
Robots can be good neighbors in green spaces. But they have to act like good neighbors, too.
Original article: Jaung, W. (2024). The need for
human-centered design for AI robots in urban parks and forests. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 91, 128186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128186